Democrats are still smarting over their loss to George W. Bush last year. They continue to believe Mr. Bush won largely because he succeeded in using social wedge issues to woo voters who should have voted for John Kerry on economic grounds. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean recently told an audience in Burlington, Vermont that Republicans raised the issue of gay marriage "simply to scapegoat a group of Americans for the purpose of winning elections and dividing us." Just warming up, Mr. Dean also warned his listeners: "In 2006, we see right now the next group Republicans are aiming at: immigrants."

Bill Press, the former chair of the California Democratic Party and now a radio talk show host, is even more explicit. "If you're a Latino, put on your body armor. You are Ground Zero for Republican political attacks in 2006. Starting now." Mr. Press claims that "the tom-toms of hate are already beating. Listen to right-wing talkers Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and others."

Well, I do listen to those hosts and A) they are not Republican Party leaders and B) while they express concern over a chaotic border situation, they are far more critical of the federal government's inability to control immigration than they are of those crossing the border.

George W. Bush is vulnerable on the issue largely because his proposal to create a guest-worker program to regularize the flow of people across the border is seen as lacking a strong enforcement component. He has been savaged by many border state residents for not paying enough attention to the issue. That's why Democratic Governors Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Janet Napolitano of Arizona have seized a political opportunity by declaring largely meaningless "states of emergency" on their borders. In California, Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez has urged Governor Schwarzenegger to do the same thing.

With the exception of some overheated GOP Congressmen such as Tom Tancredo of Colorado, would Messrs. Dean and Press please explain which GOP politicians are exploiting the immigration issue? By my reading, the ones coming closest to shameless political stunts that have little practical meaning are the aforementioned Democrats.

Democrats believe that George W. Bush would never have been elected if the Supreme Court had not made one of its most infamous decisions in history. Tell every mother of a son killed in Iraq that Dred Scott or Plessy did more harm.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

Bemoaning "hijacked" elections is popular with the left the world over, it seems.

Kevin Donnelly: Campaign out of class

August 24, 2005
IS Treasurer Peter Costello correct when he argues there is a left-wing, anti-American bias in our education system? Is Education Minister Brendan Nelson also correct when he argues that the 3Rs of reading, writing and arithmetic have been redefined as the republic, reconciliation and refugees? Judged by the actions of the Australian Education Union, the answer appears to be yes.

The 1960s and '70s were not only about Woodstock, Vietnam moratoriums and flower power. At the same time, education became a key battleground in the Left's attempt to take over the commanding heights of the nation's culture.

Former Victorian education minister Joan Kirner once argued that the work of schools had to be radically redefined. Instead of education being impartial, she said, it had to become "part of the socialist struggle for equality, participation and social change, rather than an instrument of the capitalist system".

Fast forward to the early months of 2003 and the war in Iraq. The AEU told classroom teachers to tell students that the US-led war was illegal, that allied troops should be immediately withdrawn and to "support students who take an anti-war stance".

More recent evidence of the AEU's left-wing bias is evident in president Pat Byrne's prepared remarks at the 2005 Queensland Teachers' Union biennial conference on June 21 (see Cut & Paste on the opposite page).

Once again, education is defined as a key battleground in the culture wars as teachers are urged to regroup after last year's re-election of the Howard Government. In the eyes of the AEU president, the Prime Minister's success, like that of President George W. Bush, is illegitimate. Instead of the Australian electorate getting it right, the cultural warriors of the Left argue voters were duped. As Byrne put it:

"The ALP identified trust as a major weakness in the Coalition's armour. The strategy was to focus on one of our most fundamental values and to exploit the Government's failings -- children overboard, the Iraq war, just to name a couple. It should have worked. As we know, however, they were hopelessly outmanoeuvred when the Coalition turned the trust argument into: 'Who do you trust to run the economy?"'

Not only does the AEU president bemoan the election result and the Left's response to the ALP's defeat, which she describes as "unedifying", Byrne also argues that to win the hearts and minds of voters before the next election, "we have to be start with being on the progressive side of politics".

"We haven't begun to reframe our position in a way that can successfully counter the culture war which is currently being fought. We are still so affronted, so assaulted by the conservatives that we are only thinking about immediate defence."

One might be forgiven for thinking that the AEU's prime responsibility is to raise standards by ensuring more effective teaching and greater accountability. Not so. The reality, especially at election time, is that the AEU acts as a sub-branch of the ALP. During last year's federal election, the AEU spent $1.5 million across 28 marginal seats in an attempt to have Mark Latham elected as prime minister. According to to the AEU's curriculum policy, the justification for this partisan political stance is because the teachers' union believes Australian society is unequal and socially unjust. Based on the works of Marxist intellectuals such as Antonio Gramsci and Pierre Bourdieu, the union also argues that the education system, instead of providing a ladder of opportunity, is instrumental in marginalising disadvantaged groups.

Competition and examinations, academic subjects and non-government schools are all attacked as reinforcing privilege and the union argues that schools must enforce a politically correct view on issues such as the environment, multiculturalism and peace studies.

No wonder parents are voting with their feet. And no wonder the number of Australian children attending non-government schools has risen from 22 per cent in the '80s to 32 per cent in 2005. In Victoria, at years 11 and 12, the figure rises to more than 40 per cent.

Instead of addressing the reasons why parents are disillusioned with government schools, Byrne argues that parents are simply misled by conservative political spin.

"The Coalition has cast the education debate in the terms of conservative values. It has framed the debate in terms of choice, excellence, quality, values, discipline, and has done it very effectively," she frets. "We are furious -- affronted, assaulted. We defend. We provide facts, as if telling the truth is all that is needed for people to say, 'Oh dear, we've been wrong all this time. We'll vote Labor next time'."

That Byrne and the AEU confuse education with indoctrination is cause for concern. It is even worse when such organisations refuse to accept that the Australian electorate generally gets it right and the days of Woodstock and flower power are long over.

jbuck919 wrote:Democrats believe that George W. Bush would never have been elected if the Supreme Court had not made one of its most infamous decisions in history.

And they are wrong. Every media investigation as well as that of the US government under the Clinton administration verified that if the recount had gone on, Bush still would have won. That don't mean he would have won the popular vote, but it does mean that it's easier for many, not all, Democrats to believe in conspiracy theories than it is for them to accept the truth. This seems to be a condition endemic to Democrats. Nothing can be done about winning elections until they leave behind the fairy stories they treasure and start facing realities: people don't like what they have become. Republicans went thru the same thing. For years after 1936 they kept repeating the mantra that we had to raise taxes to pay for the social programs the Democrats passed routinely. Then one day Reagan came up with a novel idea: let the Democrats raise taxes their own damn selves to pay for their own damn programs. Republicans would be the party of tax cuts. Now that was an idea.

Tell every mother of a son killed in Iraq that Dred Scott or Plessy did more harm.

Sometimes you get carried away with your very formidable powers of imagery. But it's no substitue for reality.

Brendan wrote:Bemoaning "hijacked" elections is popular with the left the world over, it seems.

They are fighting defensive actions all over.

One might be forgiven for thinking that the AEU's prime responsibility is to raise standards by ensuring more effective teaching and greater accountability. Not so.

Yeah, forget that! Here the prime responsibility of the teachers' unions is to increase education budgets thru electoral support for Democrats. Thus property taxes, the principal source for school money, are constantly on the rise in places where Prop 13 has not limited tax increases, and where it has, the education systems are in crisis, like California. The teachers' unions represent the only growth sector for unions today: government employees. So the unions support Democratic politicians and causes, including PCness, and any other program the Democrats tell 'em to. They provide Democratic footsoldiers in elections. If they are feds, it's all volunteer, which can be very valuable to the extent that the model hasn't been totally disrupted by the 04 election.